Twenty-six years ago this week, back in 1986, Antonin Scalia was confirmed to a lifetime seat on the United States Supreme Court, where he has since done great damage to the rights of ordinary Americans. Since Mitt Romney points to Scalia as the type of Justice he would nominate, a group of PFAW activists in Ohio took this week’s anniversary as an opportunity to reach out to voters and let them know what would be in store for them under a Romney Court.
Seth Bringman of People For’s Romney Court Campaign turned Romney’s dream into a reality; or more accurately, the nightmare that it would be for the American people.
Romney’s commitment to appoint justices like Antonin Scalia would have devastating consequences if Romney were elected president. Every law that the states and Congress pass can end up before Supreme Court; who sits on the bench has lasting importance not only for today, but for generations to come. In the words of President (and later Chief Justice) William Howard Taft, “Presidents come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever.”
Here are a few highlights of Scalia’s legacy (and thus also the legacy of the president, Ronald Reagan, who nominated him more than a quarter century ago):
▶ Scalia has said that Roe v. Wade does not make any sense and that a woman’s right to choose is not a liberty protected by the Constitution.
▶ Scalia says the Constitution doesn’t protect the privacy of two consenting adults in their own homes.
▶ Scalia held that corporations can spend unlimited money on elections (Citizens United).
▶ Scalia has always found some excuse to uphold discrimination against gay people, and has argued that states are free to pass laws singling out gay people for mistreatment just because legislators don’t like them.
▶ Scalia voted to allow a company to use the fine print of its consumer contracts, such as for cell phones, to immunize itself from being sued even by customers it purposely and illegally defrauded.
▶ Scalia voted to deny female employees of a large national company who were victims of systemic discrimination the right to join together and go to court to stand up for their rights.
▶ Scalia voted that a woman who was paid less than men at her company for the same work for 20 years could not file a discrimination suit against her employer because she failed to file her suit within 180 days of her first paycheck, even though she had no way of knowing at that time that she was being discriminated against.
While Ronald Reagan may be long gone from the White House, his nominees to the nation’s highest court are still imposing a far right agenda on the nation. Should Mitt Romney have the opportunity to mold the Court in his own image, they may still be there well into the 2040s. To find out more about Mitt Romney’s frightening vision for the Supreme Court, visit http://romneycourt.com/.
During an interview with self-proclaimed prophet Cindy Jacobs, televangelist Jim Bakker warned that “America is under curse” and God let his protective hand of protection down to allow the September 11 attacks to occur in order “to get your and my attention.” Bakker tearfully decried legal abortion and limits on organized school prayer and the public placement of religious items like the Ten Commandments, telling viewers that now “God is weeping in Heaven.”
This piece originally appeared at The Huffington Post.
Mitt Romney got some unwanted attention early this year when he flatly stated, "I'm not concerned about the very poor." When challenged on this remark he assured Americans that the safety net for the very poor was a given, safe from any budget and tax code tinkering in Washington. This was a sinister explanation since Romney's tax and spending plan -- or as much of it as can be deciphered -- calls for further tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of social services that he claimed were safe.
Now, we see that it's not just the "very poor" who don't merit Romney's "concern." At the now-infamous $50,000-a-plate fundraiser in Florida, Romney wrote off the concerns of the 47 percent of Americans who don't owe federal income taxes, saying that half of Americans are "dependent on government," "believe that they are the victims," and have the gall to "believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
That 47 percent includes families and individuals with low incomes -- about 23 percent of taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center. It also includes those for whom tax credits for children and working families have eliminated tax burdens -- about 7 percent. It also includes seniors who have left the workforce -- about 10 percent. Over half of the 47 percent pay federal payroll taxes. All are subject to state and local taxes, many of which, like sales taxes, are more regressive than federal taxes. (And if we ever see more Romney tax returns, we may find some years when the Romney's were in that entitled 47 percent.)
As conservative writer Reihan Salam points out in the National Review, policies like the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit -- responsible for much of this tax relief for working families -- were conservative ideas meant to reduce the "dependency" that Romney so reviles, by "encourag[ing] people get on the first rungs of the jobs ladder, and to become less dependent over time."
Romney was telling the well-heeled guests at this fundraising dinner that these people -- middle-class parents, low-income workers, the unemployed, the elderly -- aren't interested in working hard despite the fact that most of them report to the IRS each year that they work quite a lot. This isn't just tin-eared politics. Like Romney's comments on the "very poor," it represents a profound misunderstanding of how Americans' lives work and how his policies would affect those lives.
But even talking about the "47 percent versus the 53 percent" belies the fact that nobody in America is free from at least some government "dependency." We all rely on roads, hospitals, schools, firefighters, police officers, and our military -- even Mitt Romney and his $50,000-a-plate friends. Romney himself has relied on the government's safety net for businesses, securing a federal bailout for Bain & Company. Nobody succeeds without some help from a stable, functional government. That's what President Obama was saying when his "you didn't build that" comments were taken out of context.
Romney was clearly telling his funders a fantasy story that they love to hear. But that story is a lie, and we shouldn't accept it from someone who could become a president representing 100 percent of the American people.
During his conference call with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Vision America’s Rick Scarborough hailed Perry’s The Response prayer rally, which occurred in August of last year, for supposedly ending the state’s extreme drought that began in October, 2010. However, according to StateImpact Texas, "in 2011, Texas endured the worst single-year drought in its history" and while “the situation has improved recently, the drought is far from over — and the conditions that caused it aren’t going away anytime soon.” Scarborough, who made the claim before while speaking to pseudo-historian David Barton, credited The Response with leading to “record rainfalls” months later and a speedy recovery.
Let me just say this, a lot of folk were aware that Texas had the worst drought in our history two years ago into last year, Governor Rick Perry called a statewide season of prayer and fasting and more than 30,000 people showed up personally at Reliant Stadium in downtown Houston where our football team plays. He led that complete day in prayer and fasting for God to break the drought, a lot of people criticized him in the press. But what a few people failed to take note of is a drought everyone said would take Texans years to get over, we began getting rain, it actually rained a bit that very day, but a few months later it began to rain, we had seasons where we had record rainfalls for a period of time and even now we are having rain. I attribute the breaking of that drought and the renewal of our resources as a state to the godly leadership of a governor who was not ashamed to humble himself before the world and become a part of leading our state in prayer.
A lot of folk criticized the calling of that prayer event and they missed the understanding that God didn’t answer the breaking of the drought that day but within six months our lakes were back up to normal, our farmers were harvesting hey, cattle crops were saved, the fires across the state subsided. I am privileged to live in a state that is covered by a governor like Governor Rick Perry.
I had mentioned while you were waiting for you to get on the call about the impact of our Response at Reliant Stadium and how the press was willing to mock the calling of the prayer and fasting but had failed to document that what everyone thought would take years to replenish our lakes and streams almost happened in three months. It began raining, this year our farmers had a record year of harvesting their hey and I take all of that back to a courageous call of a governor of a state to the people to pray and fast, and the fact that you led in that day which I was certainly in the audience and participating in.
Texas governor Rick Perry spoke today on a conference call with extremist pastor Rick Scarborough as part of his “40 Days to Save America” campaign to motivate and organize Religious Right voters. Perry said that the separation of church and state, which he dismissed as a myth, is being used to drive “people of faith from the public arena.” Perry said that he believes Satan is using the “untruth” of the separation of church and state to remove Christians from public life: “The idea that we should be sent to the sidelines I would suggest to you is very driven by those who are not truthful, Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there is driven—is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena.”
This separation of church and state, which has been driven by the secularists to remove those people of faith from the public arena, there is nothing farther from the truth. When you think about our founding fathers, they created this country, our Constitution, the foundation of America upon Judeo-Christian values, biblical values and this narrative that has been going on, particularly since the ’60s, that somehow or another there’s this steel wall, this iron curtain or whatever you want to call it between the church and people of faith and this separation of church and state is just false on its face. We have a biblical responsibility to be involved in the public arena proclaiming God’s truth. You know, are we going to get up and say ‘you are going to vote for X’? No, but we’re going to talk about Christian values. When you think about the issue of life and protecting life, it’s so important that we as Christians put legislation into place, that we elect women that defend life. The idea that we should be sent to the sidelines I would suggest to you is very driven by those who are not truthful, Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there is driven—is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena.
Perry said that America is undergoing “spiritual warfare” and Religious Right activists who “truly are Christian warriors, Christian soldiers” need to stand up to “activist courts” and “President Obama and his cronies” whom he said are making “efforts to remove any trace of religion from American life.” He called on listeners to use such spiritual warfare against the “growing tide of secularism and atheism” that “preach[es] tolerance and diversity while they engage in oppression and bullying tactics.”
You think about what has gone here in the last few days around the world and never has there been a time that I think we need more spiritual courage, that we need more moral fiber if you will. The American family is under seize, traditional values are somehow exclusionary, a simple prayer in our public schools is the basis for these secular attacks; you think about this spiritual warfare that’s going on and [inaudible] going strong as President Obama and his cronies in Washington continue their efforts to remove any trace of religion from American life. It falls on us, we truly are Christian warriors, Christian soldiers, and for us as Americans to stand our ground and to firmly send a message to Washington that our nation is about more than just some secular laws. Activist courts, we see them chipping away from our values and remove so much that is very special and unique about the United States. I don’t want to get too far off course here but when you think about what’s going on in the Middle East and the president stood up in Cairo in 09 and either incredible naïve or very unschooled in the ways of these radical Islamists, and four American lives were lost in Libya. It is our founding fathers knew and understood the importance of the role of our Creator in public discourse and they didn’t shy away from referencing Him, using the values he brought and the message of his son Jesus Christ to build the system that we as a society have e enjoyed for more than 200 years. Securing that system, rebuilding our nation is what these 40 Days to Save America is really all about. It’s about saving our nation, it’s about preserving the values that make us special, about rejecting the concept that freedom of religion means freedom from religion, about turning away from this growing tide of secularism and atheism, the way they preach tolerance and diversity while they engage in oppression and bullying tactics.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton, who now serves as a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney, appears to be taking a page from Michele Bachmann with a new claim that the Obama administration is going to begin limiting free speech and expression to prohibit anti-Muslim rhetoric. While speaking to Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio, Bolton agreed with Gaffney that the State Department under Secretary Hillary Clinton is working with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to curtail the freedom of speech and begin “reinstitute blasphemy laws.” He even warned that there are people within the Obama administration who have hate speech laws “on their agenda” and made the absurd assertion that Secretary Clinton is opposed to the freedom of expression.
Bolton: I am very worried that under the Obama administration we are submitting to this claim that people have to temper their free speech rights to be respectful of what the OIC claims is the appropriate standard. Take the US embassy in Cairo’s first statement which apologize for this film as if appeasement was going to stop the mob from coming over the embassy’s wall, while it’s true that the Obama administration repudiated that statement honestly if you look carefully at what the President and particularly Secretary Clinton said since then they still are apologizing for this act, scurrilous though it might be, of an American private citizen. And it ties in directly — it’s a direct analytical predicate for the claim that it’s the movie that’s the whole problem with the riots and demonstrations in the Middle East. I think this is something that we need a broader public debate about because the notion that somehow we’re going to reinstitute blasphemy laws in the United States is something the overwhelming majority of Americans would react instinctively against.
Gaffney: Yet we are seeing as a result of something called the Istanbul process, which as you mentioned Secretary State Hillary Clinton has been involved, John Bolton, which produced last December a resolution in the Human Rights Council which is aimed at trying to prevent defamation of religions and goes beyond really what Mrs. Clinton has talked about in terms of ‘old fashioned peer pressure and shaming’ as instruments of suppressing free expression that offends Muslims. It seems uniquely geared towards Muslims by the way, I’ve not heard anybody saying we have to be impede people from being critical of Christians or Jews or Hindus or anybody else. But John Bolton to the extent to what we have been seeing elsewhere around the world, notably the prosecution of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Lars Hedegaard in Denmark and Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant in Canada to what amounts to hate speech. Do you think we’re on a track in this country, maybe under the guise of incitement, of a similar kind of constraint on freedom of expression if the Obama administration has its way?
Bolton: I think there are people who clearly have that on their agenda; I don’t see how we can blanket that reality. I do think that it comes in with a deceptively cautious approach to say ‘we just want people to be respectful,’ well fine that’s a decision each individual makes. But the whole point of our first amendment which I think distinguishes us from every other country around the world and is another example of American exceptionalism is that the government does not interfere with the content of speech, that is up to the political opinion of each speaker. That favorite liberal icon, Justice Brennan, in that famous iconic case New York Times v. Sullivan, said that debate in America should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and I say I stand with Justice Brennan and against Secretary Clinton on that point.
Fox News’s Todd Starnes is sick and tired of ‘South Park’ and Hollywood getting a free pass. The Fox News commentator participated in the Values Voter Summit panel on “Religious Hostility in America” over the weekend.
We have the seen the administration come out and say, "we condemn anyone who denigrates religious faith." And they come out in regards to this anti-Muslim film.Well, that's well and good, but my question is, when has the administration condemned the anti-Christian films that are coming out of Hollywood? Where are the federal investigations into shows like ‘South Park,’ which has denigrated all faiths?Where is the outrage when people of the Christian faith are subjected to this humiliation that is coming out of Hollywood?
Before telling attendees of the Values Voter Summit about her “sexual rampage” as part of an attack on Sandra Fluke and the contraception coverage mandate, right-wing activist Star Parker sat down with Buster Wilson of the American Family Association to knock the Republican Party for not being anti-gay enough. While Paul Ryan is a vehement opponent of gay rights, Wilson and Parker were upset that Ryan did not speak in depth about his stance against marriage equality at a time when Democrats are campaigning on the issue.
Parker offered a stern warning to the GOP: speak out against same-sex marriage or lose God’s blessing. Parker, who interviewed Ryan for her own show, expressed disappointment in his speech and said that she was “not confident that God is going to shine down upon the party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan, while we are running away from the very core issues that birthed us as a party.” In fact, Parker even likened the fight over marriage equality to the debate over slavery.
Wilson: One of the things that Paul Ryan did not speak of in his speech today was the issue of marriage, it seemed like once again ‘it’s the economy stupid’ with this campaign and we’ve done everything we can do to shy away from any of the social issues, in particular marriage. But not the Democrats, it seemed like everybody that spoke at the Democratic Convention brought up the fact that they were the party for abortion and gay marriage and gay rights. Why do you think the conservatives that are—let me rephrase this— why do you think the Romney campaign seems to want to shy away from those issues as much as he does.
Parker: Because the Republican Party is a political party, when you think about the social environment, if you think about the social issues, they demand us to talk about morality and I think that the Republican Party has made the decision that they don’t want to. The challenge before them, however, is that this election is about choosing who we are going to serve. According to the Scripture, God said I’d laid life and death before you, good and evil before you, those are defining topics. As you just mentioned, Democrats have made it clear who they are and they are going to make sure that we define ourselves. So it is unfortunate that even though Romney and the Republicans have decided that we are not going to define ourselves and that now Paul Ryan has not done that here at the Values Voter Summit. I do not know who prepared his remarks for him, I love him, I’ve known him since he came to Washington, D.C., I am very hopeful that his star will consider to shine. But I am just not confident that God is going to shine down upon the party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan, while we are running away from the very core issues that birthed us as a party. We are at that critical cross point, similar to the 1850s; we cannot go on like this half-free and half-slave. We are going to have to do what Abraham Lincoln did and that’s reach into the Scripture and say ‘a house divided against itself can’t stand.’
The former Susan G. Komen for the Cure executive who orchestrated the organization’s controversial and short-lived break from Planned Parenthood earlier this year, is out with a new book claiming that the funding dispute was all Planned Parenthood’s fault. In “Planned Bullyhood,” Karen Handel claims that Planned Parenthood turned its back on a “gentlewomen’s agreement” to not discuss the fact that Komen was withdrawing $680,000 a year in grants for breast cancer screenings through the organization’s clinics and then turned on Komen in a PR blitz.
In interviews with right-wing radio hosts Janet Mefferd and Janet Parshall last week, Handel portrays herself as the victim of bullying by the “vicious” Planned Parenthood. She tells Mefferd that Planned Parenthood launched “a mafia-style attack” and that “Komen was held hostage for a mere $680,000.” She sees a double standard in the fact that President Obama didn’t call her after she was criticized, “like he did Sandra Fluke”:
Handel: The left and Planned Parenthood, they were threatening Komen’s corporate sponsors: “See what we’re doing to Komen? If you don’t stop supporting them, we’re gonna do the same to you.” They were just filling up the Facebooks, Twitter, Komen’s website crashed, there were bomb threats, corporate sponsors were threatened. It really was almost a mafia-style attack, if you will, and Komen was held hostage for a mere $680,000. And Planned Parenthood and the left, they wanted this to be about politics. I believe they used Komen purposefully as a pawn, if you will, in this ridiculous so-called “War on Women” and these cries of “women’s health.” And Janet, my question for you, and I just find this all so insulting, how in the world did the issue of women’s health get reduced to being about abortion and contraception?
Meffered: Right. I’m with you.
Handel: I just reject that. I reject that notion, and I think that most women do too.
Mefferd: Oh, completely. And what I found very interesting, Karen, doing the show that I do, and being pro-life and knowning a lot of pro-lifers, when Susan G. Komen made that decision and all the pro-lifers were going “Yes, finally, great!,” the next thing people were saying was, “Now watch what Planned Parenthood will do to them.” You know, we knew. We knew exactly how Planned Parenthood would react, though admittedly it was more over the top than I think a lot of us believed it would be. It was shameful what they did.
Handel: You know, it really was. And you know, they had such an amicable partner in all of it, which was the liberal mainstream press, which really served almost as an extension of all of it and really targeted the politics, my personal politics, Ambassador Brinker’s personal politics. And I’d like to point out, you did not see Susan G. Komen for the Cure endorsing presidential candidates the way Planned Parenthood has, you don’t see Komen investing, what’s Planned Parenthood gonna spend, almost $10 million in campaign ads to support Barack Obama. Nobody, the president didn’t call me and let me know he was sorry about the attacks that I faced, like he did Sandra Fluke.
Handel told Parshall that Planned Parenthood’s “agenda” is “not about women’s health” or “they would not have wanted to try to destroy” Komen.
Parshall: Planned Parenthood’s assault, to use your word, and by the way you started using that word back in February of this year, way before it became the title of your book, if they’re bullying people because they might have a pro-life position, it really calls into account whether they are pro-women or whether they are politically aligned rather than rising to a higher cause.
Handel: I think that’s right, I think you’ve really hit on it, Janet. And for Komen, that’s exactly what Komen was trying to do. Komen wanted to be in a place where everyone, regardless of whether they were pro-life or on the other side of the issue, would be able to embrace the organization and embrace the mission. We wanted to be neutral and we wanted to be good stewards of dollars. Don’t get me wrong, it was both. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, they were willing to sacrifice Komen for the sake of their agenda, which is not about women’s health. If it was about women’s health, they would not have wanted to try to destroy an organization that was doing such good work in the area of breast cancer.
Pseudo-intellectual Dinesh D’Souza joined Janet Mefferd last week to promote his much derided anti-Obama movie 2016, where he once again made the erroneous and unfounded argument that Obama refuses to pursue “Muslim jihadists” because he “views those guys like freedom fighters,” deliberately ignoring the long list of senior terrorists killed under Obama’s leadership. According to D’Souza, Obama only approved the killing of Osama bin Laden because the Al Qaeda leader “came to our country to knock down a bunch buildings” and is “just a gangster, he’s like an international serial killer.” The President continues to sympathize with other terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, D’Souza states, even though Obama increased the US troop presence in Afghanistan along with the number of attacks on militants in Pakistan.
D’Souza: You know, Obama's been boasting, certainly he deserves credit for the bin Laden operation, remember the bin Laden operation is different from than these Muslim jihadists in Iraq or Afghanistan or even the Palestinians in Israel, I think Obama views those guys like freedom fighters, fighting to liberate their country from US occupation. But bin Laden is not defending his own country, he came to our country to knock down a bunch buildings and so from Obama's point of view he's just a gangster, he's like an international serial killer. So there's no inconsistency with calling Obama an anti-colonialist on the one hand and yet saying he approved the bin Laden killing on the other.
The filmmaker also told Meferd that Obama is “actively supporting” a “bid by the radical Muslims” to create an Islamic caliphate. D’Souza also said that Obama has sidelined Egypt’s military in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood aligned president, not mentioning that his administration just offered $1.5 billion to Egypt’s military for defense cooperation. D’Souza even claimed that Obama considers the US to be an “evil” world power: “So for [Obama], it’s not Iran that’s a bad guy, it’s not North Korea, we’re the bad guy, and he sees his job amazingly as one of containing the United States. I think he believes in American exceptionalism, he just thinks that we’re exceptionally evil, we’re the guys that need to be controlled.”
D’Souza: I think what we're seeing is very troubling, we're seeing a real bid by the radical Muslims to do something that they haven't done in 400 years which is to attempt to restore Islam as a global power and they see an opportunity to do this thanks to the Obama administration's complete abdication of responsibility, one by one our allies are falling in the region, one by one our adversaries are coming to power, and Obama doesn't just seem unbothered by this he seems to be actively supporting it.
Mefferd: He does. I compared his statement in both written and on TV with what Mitt Romney did today. What a difference, Romney expressed we are Americans, we stand for freedom of speech, we will not tolerate that sort of thing; we didn't hear that language from Obama, which really dovetails with what you said in 2016, he's not that mad about it perhaps.
D’Souza: No, there are some people, and some conservatives too, who think Obama's an amateur, he's a blunderer, he doesn't know what he's doing, and you can say all right a year and a half ago when he supported the democracy movement in Egypt he thought it might result in a pro-American government in Egypt, but now he can see very clearly that no, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate won the presidential election, they won the parliamentary election, the bottom line of it is that Egypt is moving into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. What does Obama do? So right now there's a power struggle going on between the military and the Brotherhood, and Obama is clearly on the side of the Brotherhood, he's telling the military, 'hey guys, you better turn over power or the US is going to cut off aid.' So Obama is actively accelerating the transition of power in Egypt into the hands of the largest organization of radical Islam in the world.
Mefferd: A lot of listeners will hear you say that Dinesh and ask, why would Obama want an Islamic caliphate to come to power?
D’Souza: Well I think for Obama there is a simple goal: reduce the global power of the United States, in other words, reduce America's footprint in the world. Why? Not because Obama is a traitor or a secret Muslim or something, rather he wants to reduce America's footprint in the world because he feels that we've been stepping on the world. So for him, it's not Iran that's a bad guy, it's not North Korea, we're the bad guy, and he sees his job amazingly as one of containing the United States. I think he believes in American exceptionalism, he just thinks that we're exceptionally evil, we're the guys that need to be controlled.
Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow called out Paul Ryan for speaking at the Values Voter Summit and lending credibility to the bigotry and pure crazy on display at the conference. Her report provided crucial context on the extremists who are appearing at the conference – something that has been sorely lacking in most media coverage so far.
We have been covering the absurd, bizarre and paranoid rantings of phony ex-terrorist Kamal Saleem as he emerged on the Religious Right scene, and today he had his biggest platform yet at the Values Voter Summit, where he was preceded by Ohio congressman Jim Jordan and a video message by Mitt Romney. Saleem told conference goers his made-up story about his time as a terrorist working for Lebanon, Syria, the PLO, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and even Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, until he moved to the U.S. to wage "cultural jihad." He claimed he and his fellow terrorists "met the professors" at American universities and colleges, which "were our playgrounds," in order to help "the professors to establish new curriculum purposefully" to brainwash students to change "your children to hit your nation with everything they've got."
Later, Saleem said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is working with Islamic countries to eviscerate the Constitution and "subjugate American people to be arrested and put to jail and their churches and synagogues shut down," which he says will happen early next year!
While speaking to Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live, Dinesh D’Souza continued to lay out his wild and dishonest conspiracies about President Obama and even argued that President Obama doesn’t have any “interest in so-called civil rights or black issues.” That’s because, D’Souza explains, Obama had a Kenyan father and a white American mother and therefore “hasn’t had the African American experience.” In fact, “his policies have actually been very harmful, economically harmful to be sure, for Black America.”
Caller: I got a question. Isn’t Obama’s thinking a product of civil rights…anti-white, anti-Western pro-equality? Isn’t Obama’s thinking actually civil rights philosophy?
D’Souza: That’s a good question, and I used to think so but I think the answer I have to give you now is no. Remember that Obama, I mean Obama yes he’s the first black, African American president, but he hasn’t had the African American experience. And by that I mean he’s never sat at a segregated lunch counter. He’s not even descended from anyone who has. He’s not descended from slaves. His father was, well I’m tempted to say an immigrant, but he wasn’t even an immigrant, I’m an immigrant, you know immigrants come to this country to stay. Barack Obama, Sr. came to America to study and go back home and he did. So, his father’s a Kenyan, his mom is a white girl from Kansas, you know, where’s the African American part?
D’Souza: So what’s kind of strange is that a lot of African Americans say well I’m for Obama because he’s like me and so on, not realizing that first of all, Obama you know has had no interest in so-called civil rights or black issues, and second of his policies have actually been very harmful, economically harmful to be sure, for Black America.
D’Souza goes on to claim that Obama was mentored by anti-American communists and terrorists, but no one in the U.S. knows about it because the media is intentionally trying to “suppress information that’s harmful to Obama because they want him to win again.” Seemingly fixated on finding out the names of Obama’s ex-girlfriends, D’Souza claims that the public hasn’t learned the identities of the President’s ex-girlfriends because they likely came from the same group of “radical, revolutionary and truly dangerous characters” that he had “been hanging out with.”
D’Souza: Conservatives are energized, they feel they have new information when they see this film. But I think even independents are writing up and saying that they’re shaken by the film. They just didn’t know and they become a little furious that all these facts about Obama that are laid out in the film have somehow not been presented to them for the past four years. So vital information that would enable them to attack Obama is not being given. And I think it’s because there are a lot of people in the mainstream press, you know the New York Times, Chris Matthews at MSNBC—a lot of these guys they become, they stop become being journalists, they basically become, in a way, a publicist for Obama because they also think it’s morally vital for the United States for Obama to get a second term. So they’ll suppress information that’s harmful to Obama because they want him to win again.
Schafly: Well, we’ve never had a president that so, so little is known. I mean, all kinds of things we don’t know, such as his grades in school and how he got into Columbia and what he did and why we don’t hear from his classmates…nobody seems to remember him in these schools.
D’Souza: That’s all true Phyllis you’re absolutely right, and to me the more important and damaging information that we don’t know are the people who have influenced him, you know who have basically been shaping his mind over the past 20-30 years. In my book I have a chapter called Obama’s Founding Father, and we find out in that the five people who influenced him. Well one was a former Communist, Frank Marshall Davis in Hawaii, one was a member of Palestine National Council, a guy Edward Said, that Commentary Magazine has called a professor of terror. Another was a Brazilian socialist at Harvard Law School. This is a guy who has called for India, Russia, and China to quote gang up on the United States. Then we have a domestic terrorist Bill Ayres. And finally the incendiary preacher Jeremiah Wright. So what a group, I mean we’ve never had a president before who has been you know tutored or mentored by a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, by a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon. So why isn’t this information the lead story on CBS Evening News. And the answer is those guys just don’t want the American people to know about it.
D’Souza: David Meredith in his biography of Obama, talked to a girl who was supposed to be Obama’s girlfriend. But of course her story about Obama doesn’t match the one that Obama writes about in his own book, Dreams from My Father. So Meredith goes to Obama and says well is this the girl? And Obama goes no, no, no, I had many girlfriends, and I made a composite of them. And I’m thinking wait a minute, where are those girlfriends? How come they haven’t come forward? How come no journalist has ever interviewed them? So with Obama, you know you have all these black holes surrounding this guy. It’s very shady, and Obama himself isn’t telling and I think the reason he isn’t telling is that he’s been hanging out with the radical, revolutionary and truly dangerous characters.
Walid Phares, a controversial (to say the least) member of Mitt Romney’s Foreign Policy and National Security Advisory Team, is accusing President Obama of trying to “quit the ideological confrontation” with radical Islamic groups while speaking with Frank Gaffney this week.
Phares: Since 9/11 our military, our security agencies have been very successful, every battle we fought against the jihadists in Afghanistan and elsewhere, the elimination of their leaders, our military, our intelligence, was successful. Where we were not successful was ideologically, the political response, specifically of this administration. The last two years, probably (inaudible), but this administration has decided to quit the ideological confrontation and that's why we're not ending this war.
Phares also said that the Muslim Brotherhood has succeeded in penetrating “the national security apparatus” and political institutions, and that many Muslim-American organizations are actually fronts for the Brotherhood. He even alleged that the Obama administration is now doing the work of the Brotherhood and deliberately undermined “our capacity as a nation and as a government to understand where the threat is coming from,” demanding Congress investigate the supposed infiltration.
Gaffney: Walid, I'd like you to drill down for a minute on as you say sort of the Stalinist version of this Sharia, jihadist enterprise. Civilization jihad, to what extent are you concerned about the role being played by Muslim Brotherhood affiliated entities inside the United States as they seek to perhaps keep us witless about the threat that they represent and maybe even encourage this focus on this shiny, dangling object of al-Qaeda, recognizing that it will not be the thing that it is decisive in this war if we even succeed in defeating al-Qaeda.
Phares: Absolutely, Frank, actually in my book, the first post-9/11 book published "Future Jihad: Terrorist Stratgies Against America," I probably was the first one to expose the network of Muslim Brotherhood fronts, on a strategic level of course, at which basically the main role is to penetrate the national security apparatus, to penetrate the political institutions of the United States would it be political parties, administrations, as much placement of advisers to a point whereby our policy with regard to the Middle East and our policy with regard to jihadism in the United States is now being advised and suggested to by Muslim Brotherhood either fronts or advisers or sympathizers, and that's a real threat and a real problem to our national security. If our government, bureaucracy, policy makers, media and others to understand and analyze the threat they rely on advisers and experts who basically are sympathizers with the Muslim Brotherhood, or at least present them differently than what they are, we are in big strategic trouble.
Gaffney: And is there any question that this is going on at the moment, Walid Phares? You know a lot about these various front organizations. The Islamic Society of North American, for example, whose president Mohamad Magid is a routine guest in all of the cabinet offices involved in the security portfolio and the White House as well. I believe the President sat next to him at the recent Iftar Dinner, actually flanked by him on the one side, Mohamed Morsi, and by Huma Abedin on the other. To what extent are such organizations the catalysts for the civilization jihad you're warning about?
Phares: There's public relations side of it, strategic communications side, that the MB front or ally or sympathizers are performing inside government, and there is something more serious to me which is the actual texts, they are producing actual memorandums that become policy. You and I are aware of that one memo that was issued by so-called Muslim-American organizations, if you check on them they are mostly Muslim Brotherhood organizations and not the moderate ones, that memo was the basis for another U.S. government memo that banned the use of words, the words of references to jihadism and caliphate over the past four years. That basically was a major strike against our analysts, against our capacity as a nation and as a government to understand where the threat is coming from. That is an issue that should be raised in Congress and in the presidential debates, I hope.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) is joining Mitt Romney in accusing President Obama of “sympathizing” with radical Islamists, telling Frank Gaffney in an interview yesterday that the attack on the embassies in Libya and Egypt are a result “of years of pandering to radical Islamic forces which has been conducted by the President of the United States himself.” According to Rohrabacher, Obama has only tried to “apologize” and “is incapable of being aggressive” when it comes to fighting radical Islamists.
Later, Rohrabacher even falsely claimed that Obama refuses to “even condemn them for their murderous activities” and blamed the President for the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya: “now even our ambassadors are being assassinated and this is a result of that attitude being presented on our behalf by this administration.”
We are reaping the rewards of years of pandering to radical Islamic forces which has been conducted by the President of the United States himself. His first act of president was to go over in the Middle East and basically apologize to all of these different countries and various groups of Islamic leaders throughout the Middle East and basically leaving the impression that he believed that the bad blood between us is caused because the United States being insensitive to Islam. Well, that was interpreted as weakness, the fact that since then we haven't been able to back up the Iranians who are struggling against their mullah dictatorship, how many times have we criticized and actually come down aggressively against those people in the Islamic world who are killing Christians? We can't even do that. So we have a President of the United States who is incapable of being aggressive and an out loud and angry voice putting radical Islam where it belongs.
Mitt Romney by stepping up and pointing out that you do not apologize for standing up for freedom of speech or freedom of religion, you don't apologize to a radical Islamic group that murders other human beings because they disagree on their religious values or want to express that they think Islam may be incorrect here and there or even basically someone who wants to have a very heavy attack on the basic fundamentals of Islam in terms of intellectual discourse. Instead what we've got is we have to walk on eggs, we have to be so sensitive that we can't condemn those people when they're out in the name of retaliating against us for disagreeing with Islam. We can't even condemn them for their murderous activities, and now even our ambassadors are being assassinated and this is a result of that attitude being presented on our behalf by this administration.
Michelle Bachmann, speaking at the Values Voter Summit this morning, quickly one-upped Mitt Romney in pinning blame on President Obama for the violent protests in Libya and Egypt and deaths of four Americans in Libya. She accused Obama of appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood and opening our borders to terrorists. Not long after, Paul Ryan also attacked Obama over foreign policy:
Amid all these threats and dangers, what we do not see is steady, consistent American leadership. In the days ahead, and in the years ahead, American foreign policy needs moral clarity and firmness of purpose. Only by the confident exercise of American influence are evil and violence overcome.
Top Republican officials in Kansas are considering removing President Obama from the ballot at the request of “birther” activists who believe that the president wasn’t born in the United States. Kansas’ Board of Objections, which includes Secretary of State Kris Kobach, Attorney General Derek Schmidt andLt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, haven’t made any decisions yet but they say they’re taking the challenge seriously.
This isn’t Kobach’s first brush with birtherism. It’s also not his first brush with extremism that targets people of color. Kobach, who once worked for the nativist anti-immigrant group FAIR, has been a leader in pushing extreme anti-immigrant laws throughout the country, including draconian measures in Arizona and Alabama.
Kobach is also an informal advisor to Mitt Romney.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an informal advisor to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said on Thursday he and his fellow members of a state board were considering removing President Barack Obama from the Kansas ballot this November.
Kobach is part of the State Objections Board along with Attorney General Derek Schmidt and Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer, all Republicans. The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that on Thursday the board agreed consider whether to take Obama off the ballot because they said they lacked sufficient evidence about his birth certificate.
“I don’t think it’s a frivolous objection,” Kobach said, according to the Capital-Journal. “I do think the factual record could be supplemented.”
The board is looking at a complaint filed by Joe Montgomery, of Manhattan, Kan., who claimed the Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen and so is ineligible to be president. The man appears to be part of a group of conspiracy theorists known as “birthers,” who deny Obama’s birth certificate is real.
People for the American Way is proud to announce a cluster of new Young Elected Progressives endorsee primary victories this week:
On 11 September, Bryan Townsend won the Democratic primary for the state senate seat in Delaware's 11th District; he defeated incumbent Anthony Deluca and will run against Republican Evan Queitsch on 6 November.
Meanwhile, in New York's 13 September primaries, Micah Zellner won the Democratic primary for the state assembly's 76th District and Andrew Gounardes won the Democratic primary for the state assembly's 26th District; both ran unopposed and will face Republican opponents on 6 November.
Once again, PFAW congratulates these young progressive leaders on their important success this week!